L.A. militarization portends a darker future

Why would Donald Trump send the National Guard and the Marines to control a small and relatively peaceful demonstration in Los Angeles?

Of course, he claims to have done it to “save L.A.” and “they wouldn’t have a city left” if he hadn’t done it, but there is a much darker reason that we need to consider.

We know that Trump doesn’t like to give up the office, even when he is soundly defeated.

So consider this: Perhaps he is testing the possibility of using military intervention over some fictional disturbance to postpone or even cancel a future election.

— Ray Jones, San Jose

Column ignores Mideast reset toward peace

Re: “Here’s how Trump can end the Israel-Iran war” (Page A7, June 18).

For decades, conventional wisdom held that no Arab state would normalize relations with Israel until a final and fair resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was achieved.

However, the demonstrated success of the Abraham Accords — which established peaceful relations between Israel and four Arab nations (Bahrain, Morocco, the UAE and Sudan) — effectively disproved that assumption.

Given this shift in regional dynamics, it was surprising to see Thomas Friedman argue that resolving the current Israel-Iran conflict should once again be linked to resolving the Palestinian issue — a position seemingly at odds with the lessons of the Abraham Accords.

— Brian Suckow, Palo Alto

Rising authoritarianism has country on edge

With the state of political affairs the U.S. is facing, many citizens are wary of our future under our current administration.

This has caused concern throughout the nation, with thousands demonstrating on June 14 to protest the policies and actions that President Donald Trump has undertaken during his second presidency.

With the nation’s ongoing doubts about the Trump administration’s intentions for this country and its people, many are rightfully fearful of the potential rise of authoritarianism Trump’s decisions represent.

— Kaylee Kuy, San Jose

End of Iran deal set us on path to bombings

In the Orwellian upside-down world of Donald Trump, where factual reporting is “fake news”, global warming is “weather”, Ukraine is “the aggressor” and an unstable buffoon is “a stable genius,” our current Mideast crisis comes as no surprise.

After two years of negotiations, the Iranian nuclear deal was signed in 2015 by China, France, Russia, the UK and the U.S. — as well as Germany and the European Union. It “significantly reduced its nuclear program and accepted strict monitoring and verification safeguards to ensure its program is solely for peaceful purposes,” the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation said. In 2018, Trump withdrew from Obama’s hard-won agreement due to petty jealousy, labeling the best deal ever “the worst deal ever,” and now we’re paying the price.

Iran began refining its uranium stockpile to near-weapons-grade levels, and here we are — “bombs away.”

— Irv Brenner, Palo Alto

U.S. system trumps China’s despite flaws

Re: “China is unleashing a new export shock on the world” (Page C7, June 19).

China is quietly going about its business, amassing a $600 billion trade surplus — quietly, but aggressively with laser focus. Meanwhile, the Middle East is on fire and threatening to get worse, and Russia is bombarding Ukraine. The U.S. is bouncing aimlessly amid a culture war, polarization and the incoherent Donald Trump foreign and economic policy.

Gavin Newsom was enamored with the Chinese bullet train, which prompted him to double down on that wasteful project. He ignores the fact that China’s central government control facilitates building a project like that in a heartbeat. China is unencumbered by property rights, lawsuits, environmental reports and a slow-moving bureaucracy. China does what it puts its mind to quickly and efficiently.

I prefer our system, despite its flaws. Liberty and freedom trump authoritarianism any day. But we had better get our act together or this will, in fact, be the century of China.

— Dave Riggs

— Aptos

State’s end-of-life law torments critically ill

Re: “A husband’s plea for state to change its end-of-life law” (Page A6, June 18).

I am shocked that the government would not want to let its patients die a dignified death.

The op-ed by the husband begging the government to care that his wife is physically and mentally unqualified to state that she would like to be euthanized is simply awful. In such cases of severe dementia, why is there not a law allowing someone’s proxy to consent for them?

— Shreeya Vaidya

— San Jose